EVolution or GOD???? - Page 4

carmEl · #76 (**permalink**) Jan 16, 05

i believe in god.. i totally believe that there is some kind of high being.. umm as for alot of organised religion.. i disagree with the restrictions/ rules that they always seem to emphasise.. but i think religion can be cool cuz it does bring alot of hope and happiness to lots of ppl.. as for argueing with ppls personal beliefs whats the point.. either way we will believe what we want to..

hey why hate on something when it makes them happy.. or it just simply makes scense to them..

carmEl · #77 (**permalink**) Jan 16, 05

i believe in god.. i totally believe that there is some kind of high being.. umm as for alot of organised religion.. i disagree with the restrictions/ rules that they always seem to emphasise.. but i think religion can be cool cuz it does bring alot of hope and happiness to lots of ppl.. as for argueing with ppls personal beliefs whats the point.. either way we will believe what we want to..

hey why hate on something when it makes them happy.. or it just simply makes sense to them..

maztraz · #78 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chewy

UHHH... NO... WE ARE HERE TO POUND EACH OTHER AND THATS ABOUT IT!!!

haha...Maybe my explanation wasn't bright enough..And my spelling and grammar....But you should definitly read books on this so you would understand better...WE AREN'T ANIMALS ANYMORE EVEN THO A PART OF US STILL ACTS UNCONSCIENCLY...This is what makes the difference, we do act like animals when you speak about cheating on others..etc but we have ways of communication and thats what makes our sociability that animals don't always seem to understand, pounding on each other... ???
Can't you see anything else...???

Im not trying to proove you rong here, Im trying get this clear for the two of us....

And can you explan me what ''aadfa'' means and what you wanted to show by giving me bad karma...?????

automatic · #79 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

i'm not even going to read this thread, because i really don't care what anyone thinks, but when it comes to "evolution or god" the two AREN'T mutually exclusive you know....

and secondly, whose god?
yahweh? jehovah? allah? brahma/shiva/vishnu? gaea? ahura mazda? buddha? plato's "perfect flawless and uncorruptible sphere?

wum · #80 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by automatic

i'm not even going to read this thread, because i really don't care what anyone thinks, but when it comes to "evolution or god" the two AREN'T mutually exclusive you know....

and secondly, whose god?
yahweh? jehovah? allah? brahma/shiva/vishnu? gaea? ahura mazda? buddha? plato's "perfect flawless and uncorruptible sphere?

they're mutually exclusive if you're talking about the Christian God

automatic · #81 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

without having read this whole thread, i'll say that science is what can be observed and replicated. no one has been around for millions of years to see one organism become another, and this hasn't been contrived in a laboratory environment either. the real 'clincher' for the Theory of Evolution is supposed to be a transitional organism (i.e. a fish halfway to becoming a land mammal, or some shit like that) and to date none have been found.

ummmm...... i call bullshit on this one buddy! if we just stick to the fish/land mammal part there are a couple alive today, never mind fossils...

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~thebobo/mud.htm

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebr...co/dipnoi.html

http://www.csa.com/hottopics/snakehead/overview.html

finally, an rebuttal to the "no transitional species" argument from the evolutionist's point of view...the important thing to remeber is that while the fish->land mammal is the most "glamorous" species transition, the more common transition is from one species to a closely related but completely different one say, wolf->domestic dog, buffalo->cow, one species of bird-> another etc...

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

miss.myra · #82 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

I think what buggers my little scientific mind here IS (and I did mention it a few pages back, but some smart people who may have good points are too lazy to read the entire thread) Facts rely on empirical data- nobody was there, there was no data gathered, so how can it be fact? Hoooow?

automatic · #83 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

they're mutually exclusive if you're talking about the Christian God

no they're not, that's only for people who take the bible literally, which is not a prerequisite for being a christian. there are lots of christians who believe in evolution, and there are lots of evolutionists who consider themselves christian.

wum · #84 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

^ cool fish, especially the mudskipper, but I'm still not sold. It's not enough to find one animal that is adaptive to both land and water (lizards) and automatically call it transitional between to other unrelated organisms. We need the actual fossils that fill in the imaginations of Evolutionists who draw pictures to make human fetuses look like tadpoles.

The more "glamorous" organism is still required; say a fish that has hind legs that by day eats plankton and by night stalks the plains of the Serengetti. Otherwise, it's still "theory," or even less than that in my mind.

automatic · #85 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss.myra

I think what buggers my little scientific mind here IS (and I did mention it a few pages back, but some smart people who may have good points are too lazy to read the entire thread) Facts rely on empirical data- nobody was there, there was no data gathered, so how can it be fact? Hoooow?

if you are talking about me, show me where i typed the word "fact" and i'll be you a 26 of single malt.

wum · #86 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by automatic

no they're not, that's only for people who take the bible literally, which is not a prerequisite for being a christian. there are lots of christians who believe in evolution, and there are lots of evolutionists who consider themselves christian.

People who pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible are not serious Christians

automatic · #87 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

^ cool fish, especially the mudskipper, but I'm still not sold. It's not enough to find one animal that is adaptive to both land and water (lizards) and automatically call it transitional between to other unrelated organisms. We need the actual fossils that fill in the imaginations of Evolutionists who draw pictures to make human fetuses look like tadpoles.

The more "glamorous" organism is still required; say a fish that has hind feet that by day eats plankton and by night stalks the plains of the Serengetti. Otherwise, it's still "theory," or even less than that in my mind.

it doesn't work that way, evolution progresses in baby steps, and the timescales are geological. there is no "killer hunting fish" that kicked ass as a land mammal while still being fully functional in the sea, just as there was never a small furry rodent that also built computers. what i DID give you was three examples of fishes ALIVE TODAY that have rudimentary lungs, or feet, and survive for long periods and even hunt and feed on dry land.

as for evolutionists "drawing pictures" of fetuses that look like tadpoles.....first off that whole "we look like tadpoles because we're descended from amphibians" things is a specious argument even to evolutionists, and secondly, we DO resemble tadpoles when we're early fetuses, that's becuase we've got great big heads and little bodies, and we're slimy...so what, it's got nothing to do with frogs, we've got big brains.

miss.myra · #88 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by automatic

if you are talking about me, show me where i typed the word "fact" and i'll be you a 26 of single malt.

haha no I'm not talking about you at all! It's just more of a general statement.

I'm just a fencesitter, and that thought is probably one of the biggest reasons I am one!

automatic · #89 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

People who pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible are not serious Christians

but the bible is filled with contradictions.

if we're just talking about genesis here

In Genesis 1:20 & 21, "every living creature" is brought forth from the waters, including every winged fowl."

But in 2:19 God brings forth "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" from dry ground.

so which is it god boy?

DOES NOT COMPUTE! LOGICAL ERROR! BRAIN OVERLOAD! BRAIN OVERLOAD!

wum · #90 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

meh..

automatic · #91 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

GENESIS 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

GENESIS 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof."

wum · #92 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

from both places?

automatic · #93 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

meh..

great argument, you really got me there.

the point is that you CAN pick and choose about the bible, i mean, it contains rules on how properly to sell your sister as a prostitute.

the question is whether you believe the words or the message.

automatic · #94 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

from both places?

so god brought forth "every living thing" twice while he was making the world?

wum · #95 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by automatic

great argument, you really got me there.

the point is that you CAN pick and choose about the bible, i mean, it contains rules on how properly to sell your sister as a prostitute.

the question is whether you believe the words or the message.

i dunno if baby Jesus is down with that

wum · #96 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

yes, i've often wondered about the "rules" of the Old Testament. Like slave ownership. Any theological students up in here?

automatic · #97 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

i can't find the one about selling your sister, but if you've got a daughter...

EXODUS 21 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

automatic · #98 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

finally, just for miss.myra....if you punch a guy in the junk, you should have your goddamned hand cut off!

DEUTERONOMY 25:11 "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:"

DEUTERONOMY 25:12 "Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity."

miss.myra · #99 (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Oh please, the bible of all holy books must have an oddmud exemption somewhere in it? ;)

decypher · #**100** (**permalink**) Jan 17, 05

Quote:

Originally Posted by wum

^ cool fish, especially the mudskipper, but I'm still not sold. It's not enough to find one animal that is adaptive to both land and water (lizards) and automatically call it transitional between to other unrelated organisms. We need the actual fossils that fill in the imaginations of Evolutionists who draw pictures to make human fetuses look like tadpoles.

The more "glamorous" organism is still required; say a fish that has hind legs that by day eats plankton and by night stalks the plains of the Serengetti. Otherwise, it's still "theory," or even less than that in my mind.

I saw on the discovery channel once they found the fossils of a small bore like mammal that ends up in the see and loses its hind legs as it evolves. There was a series of skeletons linking the species.